|
Posted on 11/27/2012 12:55:31 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The American Civil Liberties Union sued on Tuesday on behalf of four U.S. servicewomen to challenge a longstanding policy barring women from thousands of ground combat positions, citing the changing nature of warfare and fairness for career soldiers.
The civil rights group argued in a legal complaint filed in federal court in Northern California that a military policy to bar women from combat roles on the basis of gender was unconstitutional.
"Nearly a century after women first earned the right of suffrage, the combat exclusion policy still denies women a core component of full citizenship - serving on equal footing in the military defense of our nation," reads the suit, on behalf of four women soldiers who have fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Their career opportunities also had been limited by the policy, the women said.
The lawsuit comes as the Department of Defense has slowly been dropping such gender-based restrictions. In February, it allowed some women to serve in combat battalions, a unit of 300 to 1,000 members, and dropped restrictions on women serving in units that were required to be based with combat units.
But women are still not allowed in infantry, or in smaller units engaged in combat. Women are barred from more the 238,000 positions, the ACLU said. But in Iraq and Afghanistan, where there are no clear battle lines, women have been pulled into combat in spite of the policy, the group added.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Sheesh the REMFS at the ACLU will do anything to stay out of a line unit.
Single women overwhelmingly voted Obama.
Let’s get as many of them into combat as want to go. I’m all for eliminating Obama voters however we can.
The end is near.
I supposed I’d rather have a bull dyke watching my back in combat rather than a light in the loafers flaming fluffer.
air combat, OK.. ground combat, No.
not sure how ya keep the battle lines from getting crossed up.. ‘fog of war’ and all.. ‘no holds barred’ can apply as easily to walking down the streets of a number of US cities today. so can sacrifice for a cause.. should we begrudge those who do seek to go in harm’s way, some as capable as their male counterparts, well aware of the risks?
You’d think CODE Pink’rs would be at the head of the recruitment line.. go figure.
Homosexuals and women.
Funny, back in the day feminist told us if let in the military there would be no more war - men just screwed it up and caused war and now they want to get in the fight.
I’ve never experienced war, and I understand your concerns about ground combat, but I also feel that if the left wants to push this, then send them to the front lines. Actually, I’m in favor of mandatory military service for community organizers.
The problem is that you destroy the military in doing that, you get everyone killed and we lose the war, and America ceases to exist.
What sounds funny to some people is not realistic.
I support some form of public service be it either military or community based.
Both my wife and I are veterans. Fortunate to have not seen combat ,, more a timing thing ,, but that wouldn’t have stopped her or me from going at it.
I do find it ironic that the Left which pushes all these new freedoms for gays and women so readily sacrifices others to fulfill their own agendas. but that’s business these days in politics..
Among other things, combat is an athletic event. So, putting aside all the social and sexual aspects of this, if there is one woman in an infantry squad it means that the squad as a whole is short the difference in strength and ability to carry supplies, munitions, etc that a man could carry. It’s not about women lacking the ability to pull the trigger or anything like that. History is chock full of examples depicting women being quite capable of doing so. An example of my point has come to mind. Lets say that as an experiment one NFL team could be be persuaded to always have one woman on the field at all times during every game of a season. How many games would that team win? I suggest that the answer is none. Ok, ok, maybe the Chiefs Would have won two games by now. I’ll concede that, lol :)
Females in combat would cause numerous difficulties. They would require certain "personnel items" that would take up room in cargo vehicles normally used for ammo, food, and water. They could, if they were not ugly dykes, potentially cause attention deficits which would give rise to security risks. Finally, they are not strong enough to help the big guys over obstacles or pull wounded teammates to safety.
Wouldn't that exclude about 85-90% of the citizens of the United States, males AND females, who for physical and other reasons, do not qualify?
Oh, this post is CLASSIC!!!
‘Females in combat would cause numerous difficulties. They would require certain “personnel items” that would take up room in cargo vehicles normally used for ammo, food, and water. They could, if they were not ugly dykes, potentially cause attention deficits which would give rise to security risks. Finally, they are not strong enough to help the big guys over obstacles or pull wounded teammates to safety. “
They also get raped, and they also get pregnant.
Wonder how long it’ll be after they demand this in the name of equality before the ACLU is demanding preferential treatment in the name of respecting women.
As bad as this’ll be for the future, you gotta admit the fact these screwballs can’t make up their minds is amusing.
No way that women could ever fight in real combat like THAT. These morons have forgotten what the military is for and what it does. To them, it's just another government job with lots of perks followed by 20-year retirement.
Lord help us if we ever get into another such war with say Russia or Red China.
They want women in combat positions? Fine. Let them meet the same strict physical requirements as men.
What? You mean they DON’T measure up? Why that MUST mean the standards are SEXIST.
Only one thing to do. Dumb down the physical requirements.
It depends on her position. If she was the field goal kicker or punter then there is the possibility that that team will win a few games.
A better test would be five women on one team.
“What sounds funny to some people is not realistic.”
I respect your opinion, and this is why I prefaced my remarks acknowledging that I don’t know much about combat, other than it is terrifying and incredibly difficult to go through. Out of curiosity, did the USSR put women in the front lines of combat?
How physically fit do you have to be to stand up and take a bullet? I think there’s a place for everyone in the Infantry. Say you’re not up to making an assault. Well, couldn’t you be of use as a decoy? We take all those not physically capable of assaulting an enemy position, but we give them uniforms and old weapons and we have them walk straight into the enemy’s kill zone while the real assault takes place on a flank. The enemy will be so busy killing Americans in their kill zone that the assault would be sure to work. I have reached the point where I think that everyone needs some skin in the game. Everyone wants to have a say in the military budget, fine, we’ll draft everyone. I think that once you’ve walked through the enemy’s kill zones for four years, you should be able to apply for food stamps.
Next thing you know the ACLU will be suing the enemy for not raping our men captured in combat.
It is most definitely ironic. Another irony is the way some American Jews view the military. I understand wanting peace, most of us do, but it was the American military, along with our allies, who stopped the attempted genocide of Jews by Hitler. They need to be reminded of this. One of my very best friends from college is a pacifist, pretty much anti-military Jew. Ironically, his grandparents were Holocaust survivors. In my view he should understand the incredibly important and too often thankless job the military does to give us our freedoms, and appreciate that some ‘kids’ who had their youth taken from them so they could defend us on foreign soil were the ones who opened the gates of Auschwitz.
I guess if women really want to be shot at - why not? The only thing that is required is that if the female combat troop gets pregnant that there must be an article in the UCMJ that immediately discharges them with a general discharge and no future medical care for the mother or child.
They should be barred from future claims as well.
Reason is that many years ago they added women to the crew of Navy ships - seems they can’t be deployed if they are pregnant so that served as a convenient way to get transferred back to shore duty - miss Mom and Dad, get knocked up and whoosh - you are home in your own bed, getting fed, drawing your full pay and benefits, and occupying a shore duty billet that should be reserved for a sailor (male or female) who is deserving of the assignment.
Men don’t have that option - they just get stung with the support payments.
The Soviets declared it a failure and the Germans outfought/outkilled them by many millions.
Our soldiers dying by the many millions until the enemy retreats, is not the American way of war.
We haven’t won a war in decades.
We haven’t fought total war, with conquest as the danger, for decades.
“Homosexuals and women.”
I have no problem with these groups dying in the military; I have no idea what exactly any of our military people are dying for at this point. They can choose a reason (taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, the right to “gay marriage”, taxpayer-funded birth control, affirmative action, free cell phones, food stamps, Barack Obama, whatever), and they can lay down their lives for it.
When a culture reaches the conclusion that females are NOT intrinsically more valuable than males - then shall its women experience Hell on Earth. Such a culture becomes a place where being born female can be a death sentence. Its young men no longer know of any reason why there should be any emphasis on protecting women.
Examples?
Rural Chinese cultures
Rural Indian cultures
Many Middle Eastern cultures
Yes. Yes we should not only begrudge, but we should discriminate there is no place for women in the military let alone combat.
The number that are as capable as their male counterparts is very very few. And just because they are well aware of the risks, doesn't mean that I, as a fighting man, accept the risks associated with her.
There already are too many distractions on the battlefield and too many units left short handed because some chick got knocked up down range or just prior to the unit deploying. Yup, got it; it's the guy's fault too, but that doesn't change the fact.
The military does not exist as a social experiment. It does not exist to make people feel good, to build nations, to make equal opportunities for all.
As I iterated last night - It is to seek out, close with, and destroy the enemy. It is to outsmart and out pace so that he can kill the enemy in the most effective manner possible. It is to demoralize and destroy. It is not a job for women.
When it comes time to look at a group of muslim terrorist POS and dump a few 6-8 round burst on a rocking and rolling M240G or M240B and remove them from the the rest of humanity, that is the time of a fighting man.
Jessica Lynch supposedly knew the risks involved. And when the SHTF she was "huddled in a protective ball in her humvee." Now, I may have only done four back to back combat deployments, but I have never been taught this fearsome fighting position......most would say it is cowering in fear. And what happened? Another soldier died trying to protect a woman.
A woman that never learned how to properly clear a jammed weapon. Why? Because there was always a man around to do it for her. And when it mattered most she couldn't perform and another soldier lost his life. But don't worry, she was put in for the Bronze Star for that other soldier's bravery. And then we know the rest of the story about how she was captured.
But don't worry, it was denied she was raped and sodomized in order to prevent the rest of U.S. forces taking out vengeance on the enemy.
There has already been enough wussification of the U.S. military. We used to teach how to kill. In the Marines we were taught Line Training. No BS hand to hand tactics on how to take another human being's life. Now "MCMAP" aka the quickest way to get your ass kicked is all about restraint. It is the Napoleon Dynamite style of fighting.....'grab my arm, no my other arm, no with your other arm.' "Never given always earned" or whatever the faggoty BS everyone gets a trophy slogan is. For you Army types out there, don't laugh your "combatives" are just as much horsesh#t too.
We spend countless upon countless hours being taught how we're all equal and women just the same as men. Well, why don't they have the same PFT, CFT, and MCIRS standards? Why are women able to do less to get better scores to promote faster? Because they are not equal in military ability and they never will be.
We can't sing cadence about killing any specific group or type of people - even those we are at war with. Can't sing about sex, murder, burning villages, or even cuss because some faggoty-ass sissy, or chick might get offended. You can go to an early grave son, but don't you dare sing about dropping napalm on a village.
It's jacked up some chick with half the time in, had a lower standard to meet and out ranks you and is now in a "leadership position" when she hasn't had the time or experience necessary to be there........it's for the greater good of equality.
I don't say any of this out of opinion or conjecture or what I've been taught....I say that as having spent 14 years of my life doing this and damn near a decade either on, or training for the two shooting range.
I have been in some of the largest and most intense battles the U.S. has ever fought in urban warfare straight - up killing people. More than 30 young men I've served with in 3 different infantry battalions haven't made it home, and countless more wounded; myself included - in ONE DAY of fighting more than half my platoon was wounded in combat.
I thank the Good Lord above we didn't have women in our platoon. And if they were there.....I'd find every way possible to leave them back. You can charge me burn me, take my chevrons, GFY.
I don't care if you are a woman in the military; were in the military; your neighbor, sister's neighbor's cousins, niece is in the military and so you feel a need to somehow justify it....but flat out THERE IS NO PLACE FOR WOMEN IN COMBAT.
In the movies, women beat up men all the time.
I think you’re speaking to the so-called futile war in Afghanistan and I concur.
I am speaking to homosexuals and women in combat. I think both are distractions and dangerous to the mission.
Homosexuals for a lot of reasons; transfusion for one, and women are not as strong as men. Period.
Note to self: proof when p'od.
Put them in an all-female infantry company and send them out on a real mission where the lives of men are not put at risk if they fail.
But then who would carry their packs?
I signed up for the Selective Service and was never called; if I was called today I would wonder what could possibly be left that is worth either laying my life down, or taking someone else’s life, for. The strategy of the left has consequences; as long as affirmative action is the law of the land, and the double standards rule the day, I could care less what happens to women or sexual deviants in combat.
This can be settled with a war game between military women picked by the ACLU and the best of the males in the Armed Services.
Out of curiosity, did the USSR put women in the front lines of combat?
But hey, I say ever army needs cannon fodder so make them all register for the draft and serve (involuntarily) in combat positions too.
Females in air combat “OK?”
They are one ejection from joining the ground war or becoming a POW.
True, but did we need to fight the wars we did? Seems they tend to end, unceremoniously, with little to show for them.
“They would require certain “personnel items” that would take up room in cargo vehicles normally used for ammo, food, and water. “
THAT is so true. Gulf War I, Day 2 in Iraq. In the TOC, staff meeting in progress and the S-4 and S-3 engaged in a discussion regarding how best to ensure “female” items are ordered and able to be delivered to HHC (only place where we had females).
Here we were, in combat, days into the ground war, talking about re-supply and we were talking about making room for female products??!!
“The only thing that is required is that if the female combat troop gets pregnant that there must be an article in the UCMJ that immediately discharges them with a general discharge and no future medical care for the mother or child.”
Actually they should be forced to have an abortion, be courtsmartialed for damaging government equipment and have their rank stripped then thrown back into the front lines.
That’s the equivalent to what happened to GIs in WWI and WW2 that contracted an STD.
Good Lord.
Best. Post. Ever. On. This. Subject.
Outstanding!
It takes a lot just for me to train a woman to get me a beer from the fridge when I snap my fingers..oh yeah, and to get me my back scratcher as well. So I can imagine what it takes to train them for combat, as IF they need training for that in the first place. Just leaving the seat up is enough.
Homos or women? I will take the women. At least they have the balls to fight.
Even the most athletic woman, stronger than the average man, bleeds and can get unexpectedly pregnant, neither of which is helpful to a combat situation. Can women serve in combat? Sure. They did in Russia against Hitler, and in Israel in 1948, and in a few cases in the civil and revolutionary wars. But this is far from ideal, and except in emergency situations should not be allowed. As for ‘Career’ considerations, give me a break. Dying needlessly is real bad for a career.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
